Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
Here’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.
About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Oh wow, where to begin. Let’s start with your first paragraph. What terms are you talking about when you say “certain terms have been stretched out?”
Secondly, trans women are women, just as much as short women are women, or blonde women are women. Trans is a descriptor meaning “on the other side of”, signifying that their biological sex is different to their gender expression. The opposite of this is cis, meaning “on the same side of”, describing that their gender expression matches their biological sex.
When you interact with people, you’re generally interacting with them in regard to how they present in the world, their gender, their appearance, their personality. Very rarely do you interact with them in regard to their genetics, so that’s not really a useful thing to talk about. Interacting with trans women or cis women on a day to day basis is no different than interacting with short women or tall women.
Gender is a constellation. You may have heard “gender is a spectrum”, but it’s actually even more complicated than that. Not only does XX and XY not cover everyone (XXX, XXY and XO are all observed in humans), but genetic expression is very bad at doing binary. You can see this by looking into people’s eyes. While there are dominant brown eye genes, and recessive blue eye genes, even people’s eyes we’d describe as blue or brown have so much variation it’s almost unimaginable. When it comes to all the ways sex characteristics develop in the body, external and internal organs, muscle mass, fat distribution, body hair and so on, sex expression dramatically fails to be binary. This is why I say it’s a constellation that is over simplified by just talking about someone’s sex chromosomes.
You spend a lot of time trying to justify JK’s use of cross dressing as a characteristic of a serial killer. This is just sad. Look at the constellation of everything that the previous poster brought up. JK has done a whole bunch of things that are anti-trans, from using the old trope of protecting children from the scary trans, to opening a women’s shelter to specifically deny trans women from it (which is against the law in Scotland, where she did this), to all the times she’s promoted very bigoted anti-trans sentiments on twitter (including anti-abortionists, anti-semites, and actual fascists when they agree with her anti-trans sentiments). This is a pattern that you absolutely can draw conclusions from. Anti-trans sentiment has been used in crime stories so many times, it’s kinda pathetic at this point. While JK does hide behind enough of a distinction for some people by calling the killer a cross-dresser, rather than trans, it’s very clear what she’s suggesting once you’ve looked at the pattern of her work, her thoughts, and who she allies with.
You bring up “trans regret” but this is such an overblown talking point, again it’s sad you’re doing that. Studies have shown that those who do transition, socially and/or medically, regret it very little, with a regret rate of less than 1% in most studies that observed good scientific process. This is not too discount detransitioners. They deserve respect and support just like anyone else. But to put barriers in the way of trans healthcare because of a less than 1% regret rate, when knee surgery has a regret rate of almost 30% and you don’t hear anyone trying to stop that, do you?
When it comes to trans teens, no surgery is done on anyone under 16, with the biggest intervention being puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty. This is fully reversible, has almost no long-term side effects, and has been shown to be so incredibly effective at treating disphoria that again the regret rate is minimal. Also more cis teens are prescribed puberty blockers than trans kids.
The previous poster was not putting words in JK’s mouth, they were observing the pattern that JK has created. She’s good enough at disguising her true thoughts that calls to bigots through dog whistles, emotionally harms her targets, and gives herself enough plausible deniability that those who aren’t paying attention can fail to see the issue. Then bigots use that deniability to continue all three of these tactics. Just like you’re doing now.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
This article has a pretty decent timeline:
https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline
Here’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.
About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Joanne then puts out her Essay:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
It’s very “Trans people are scary, think of the children, trans-inclusive language hurts real women, accepting trans-people means that bathroom rapes are going to go up”
Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Oh wow, where to begin. Let’s start with your first paragraph. What terms are you talking about when you say “certain terms have been stretched out?”
Secondly, trans women are women, just as much as short women are women, or blonde women are women. Trans is a descriptor meaning “on the other side of”, signifying that their biological sex is different to their gender expression. The opposite of this is cis, meaning “on the same side of”, describing that their gender expression matches their biological sex.
When you interact with people, you’re generally interacting with them in regard to how they present in the world, their gender, their appearance, their personality. Very rarely do you interact with them in regard to their genetics, so that’s not really a useful thing to talk about. Interacting with trans women or cis women on a day to day basis is no different than interacting with short women or tall women.
Gender is a constellation. You may have heard “gender is a spectrum”, but it’s actually even more complicated than that. Not only does XX and XY not cover everyone (XXX, XXY and XO are all observed in humans), but genetic expression is very bad at doing binary. You can see this by looking into people’s eyes. While there are dominant brown eye genes, and recessive blue eye genes, even people’s eyes we’d describe as blue or brown have so much variation it’s almost unimaginable. When it comes to all the ways sex characteristics develop in the body, external and internal organs, muscle mass, fat distribution, body hair and so on, sex expression dramatically fails to be binary. This is why I say it’s a constellation that is over simplified by just talking about someone’s sex chromosomes.
You spend a lot of time trying to justify JK’s use of cross dressing as a characteristic of a serial killer. This is just sad. Look at the constellation of everything that the previous poster brought up. JK has done a whole bunch of things that are anti-trans, from using the old trope of protecting children from the scary trans, to opening a women’s shelter to specifically deny trans women from it (which is against the law in Scotland, where she did this), to all the times she’s promoted very bigoted anti-trans sentiments on twitter (including anti-abortionists, anti-semites, and actual fascists when they agree with her anti-trans sentiments). This is a pattern that you absolutely can draw conclusions from. Anti-trans sentiment has been used in crime stories so many times, it’s kinda pathetic at this point. While JK does hide behind enough of a distinction for some people by calling the killer a cross-dresser, rather than trans, it’s very clear what she’s suggesting once you’ve looked at the pattern of her work, her thoughts, and who she allies with.
You bring up “trans regret” but this is such an overblown talking point, again it’s sad you’re doing that. Studies have shown that those who do transition, socially and/or medically, regret it very little, with a regret rate of less than 1% in most studies that observed good scientific process. This is not too discount detransitioners. They deserve respect and support just like anyone else. But to put barriers in the way of trans healthcare because of a less than 1% regret rate, when knee surgery has a regret rate of almost 30% and you don’t hear anyone trying to stop that, do you?
When it comes to trans teens, no surgery is done on anyone under 16, with the biggest intervention being puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty. This is fully reversible, has almost no long-term side effects, and has been shown to be so incredibly effective at treating disphoria that again the regret rate is minimal. Also more cis teens are prescribed puberty blockers than trans kids.
The previous poster was not putting words in JK’s mouth, they were observing the pattern that JK has created. She’s good enough at disguising her true thoughts that calls to bigots through dog whistles, emotionally harms her targets, and gives herself enough plausible deniability that those who aren’t paying attention can fail to see the issue. Then bigots use that deniability to continue all three of these tactics. Just like you’re doing now.